If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

Apocalypse said:

How can anyone know what would happen had Saddam stayed in power and allowed to continue to commit his atrocities and maintain his tyrannical regime?

You can say that he had a stable regime, sure I guess if that's something one can consider to be stable, but so did Assad until what, four years ago? And the US and the world didn't take him out, so how come Syria suddenly moved from a status of complete stability (again, if you can consider it as such) to the status of chaos and eternal bloodshed that it exists in, in recent years?

I don't think anyone can determine what would be the situation in Iraq by now had Saddam stayed in power.

Click to expand...

You miss the point. Saddam Hussein had used mustard gas on the Kurds and some Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war and the US remained friendly with the Iraqi dictator. Clearly using nerve gas on its own citizens, the Kurds, did not prevent the US and Iraq friendship from developing full steam. There was absolutely no reason for the US to invade Iraq.* The talk of WMD was propaganda pure and simple and exaggerated by this term "we don't want to wait until we see a mushroom cloud over our heads" by Condoleezza Rice. Cheney wanted to invade Iraq for profiteering and complete control of Iraqi oil contracts. The 9/11 attack seem to give the GWB/Cheney administration exactly what they wanted, a motive to go to war and they took full advantage. They first went to Afghanistan, obstensibly to look for Bin Ladin, and after a few days, left a skeleton crew in that Taliban country and went directly to invade Iraq. They tried to make a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but were unable to do so. The US should never have invaded Iraq because we did not have a reason.

*The first Gulf War, Desert Storm, was for political reasons only! George Herbert Walker Bush was hoping to be elected for a second term, but his poll numbers were extremely low, showing he was unlikely to be reelected. (Bush realized that in a time of war, the American people tend to rally around their president and that would give him the edge over his opponent for reelection.) Saddam had said repeatedly he was going to invade Kuwait, which realistically at one time, was a part of Iraq. The senior Bush said the US would not interfere in neighborhood matters between people in the middle east. That attitude gave Saddam Hussein the green light, to go ahead and invade Kuwait as the US would not intervene. Even the US Embassador, Aprile Glaspy, never alerted the dictator the US would intervene if he went ahead and invaded Kuwait.

As soon as Saddam invaded Kuwait, the two-faced Geoge Herbert Walker Bush put together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam from Kuwait. To the president's credit, he did not invade Iraq, only forced Hussein back into his lair. The senior Bush got a bump out of the brief war (only a few days), but the higher poll numbers did not last long and he lost his reelection.

Atiya said:

You miss the point. Saddam Hussein had used mustard gas on the Kurds and some Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war and the US remained friendly with the Iraqi dictator. Clearly using nerve gas on its own citizens, the Kurds, did not prevent the US and Iraq friendship from developing full steam. There was absolutely no reason for the US to invade Iraq.* The talk of WMD was propaganda pure and simple and exaggerated by this term "we don't want to wait until we see a mushroom cloud over our heads" by Condoleezza Rice. Cheney wanted to invade Iraq for profiteering and complete control of Iraqi oil contracts. The 9/11 attack seem to give the GWB/Cheney administration exactly what they wanted, a motive to go to war and they took full advantage. They first went to Afghanistan, obstensibly to look for Bin Ladin, and after a few days, left a skeleton crew in that Taliban country and went directly to invade Iraq. They tried to make a connection between Iraq and 9/11 but were unable to do so. The US should never have invaded Iraq because we did not have a reason.

*The first Gulf War, Desert Storm, was for political reasons only! George Herbert Walker Bush was hoping to be elected for a second term, but his poll numbers were extremely low, showing he was unlikely to be reelected. (Bush realized that in a time of war, the American people tend to rally around their president and that would give him the edge over his opponent for reelection.) Saddam had said repeatedly he was going to invade Kuwait, which realistically at one time, was a part of Iraq. The senior Bush said the US would not interfere in neighborhood matters between people in the middle east. That attitude gave Saddam Hussein the green light, to go ahead and invade Kuwait as the US would not intervene. Even the US Embassador, Aprile Glaspy, never alerted the dictator the US would intervene if he went ahead and invaded Kuwait.

As soon as Saddam invaded Kuwait, the two-faced Geoge Herbert Walker Bush put together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam from Kuwait. To the president's credit, he did not invade Iraq, only forced Hussein back into his lair. The senior Bush got a bump out of the brief war (only a few days), but the higher poll numbers did not last long and he lost his reelection.

Click to expand...

The post of yours I was responding to was not dealing with the justifications for the Iraq war (or the two Iraq wars since you're referring here to the Bush senior Iraq war as well), but with the claim that had Iraq not been invaded it would be an island of stability in the Mideast in current time. Nothing ensures it. Assad's regime until 4 years ago was no less stable than that of Saddam under his rule. ISIS and the different groups could just as well target Saddam's regime as it does Assad's these days.

Regarding your post however I don't think there's much to say about the US being friendly with nations that commit atrocities and I don't think one needs to look at the past since Saudi Arabia executes people who convert from Islam, drink alcohol or are homosexuals and yet it is a key US ally.

Cephus said:

Would we have invaded? Of course we would, for the same reason we did, because Bush was mad that Saddam tried to kill his daddy. Should we have done it? Nope, no more than we actually should have. Nothing would have changed.

Click to expand...

It was actually far more complicated and noble than that.... but the reasons ended up being just as absurd because our leaders were idealistic, naive and ill-infomed (and it had nothing do to with WMD).

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief20.pdf
Democracy and Demagoguery in the Middle East | Cato Institute

Glen Contrarian said:

Unfortunately, in the eyes of most conservatives, you are now officially a commie/nazi/socialist/atheist/Muslim heretic who hates freedom and wants to impose Sharia law on America. Welcome to the group!

Click to expand...

The man found a cute story, and you lap up like dog vomit. Here's what your leftwing MSM and Muslims want us to see.

American said:

The man found a cute story, and you lap up like dog vomit. Here's what your leftwing MSM and Muslims want us to see.

Click to expand...

What the hell does this even mean?

Apocalypse said:

The post of yours I was responding to was not dealing with the justifications for the Iraq war (or the two Iraq wars since you're referring here to the Bush senior Iraq war as well), but with the claim that had Iraq not been invaded it would be an island of stability in the Mideast in current time. Nothing ensures it. Assad's regime until 4 years ago was no less stable than that of Saddam under his rule. ISIS and the different groups could just as well target Saddam's regime as it does Assad's these days.

Regarding your post however I don't think there's much to say about the US being friendly with nations that commit atrocities and I don't think one needs to look at the past since Saudi Arabia executes people who convert from Islam, drink alcohol or are homosexuals and yet it is a key US ally.

Click to expand...

ISIS only exists because Iraq was destablised.

Kobie said:

What the hell does this even mean?

Click to expand...

The fact that YOU asked the question means I know you're just BSing. In 15 ****ing years we see one cute little story about a jewish grandma, and we suppose to buy into that image over the one I posted? Whoever thinks that better try harder. Hate and burning flags is the face of Islam, until stop doing it.

Manc Skipper said:

ISIS only exists because Iraq was destablised.

Click to expand...

ISIS specifically yes it is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, but in an alternate universe where Iraq is not invaded nothing ensures Saddam would not at some point have to face Islamic militias such as ISIS, like Assad had to face even though Syria was not invaded. This is the path Islamic societies had taken and would have taken regardless of an invasion to Iraq and Afghanistan as evident in the cases of Syria and Libya.

Apocalypse said:

Partially correct.
The rationale for the Iraq war was as following:



The rationale was thus to remove the regime; with the given reasoning that it developed and used WMDs, harbored and supported terrorists and terrorism, committed atrocities and human right abuses and defied demands from the UN security council.

That there were no signs of WMDs is correct, all of the rest of the given reasons for the regime removal however did apply and were correct.

Click to expand...

Plenty of countries around the world violate human rights, but that doesn't mean that invading them is justified or a remotely good idea. All of those reasons on their own do not hold as much weight as rationale to invade without possession of weapons of mass destruction.

SocialDemocrat said:

Plenty of countries around the world violate human rights, but that doesn't mean that invading them is justified or a remotely good idea. All of those reasons on their own do not hold as much weight as rationale to invade without possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Click to expand...

While in a perfect world a regime that tortures its own citizens and deprives them of their basic human rights such as North Korea for example would not be allowed to exist, I agree that it cannot be a reasonable rationale for an invasion. There was however also the reasoning of granting support for terrorism, terrorism that targeted the Western world and not just Iraq's own population. I do agree however that the WMDs claim which turned up to be completely false was the main reasoning behind the invasion, obviously.

American said:

The fact that YOU asked the question means I know you're just BSing. In 15 ****ing years we see one cute little story about a jewish grandma, and we suppose to buy into that image over the one I posted? Whoever thinks that better try harder. Hate and burning flags is the face of Islam, until stop doing it.

Click to expand...

I didnt see anything like that in Koran

What's worse then Jehovahs Witnesses? Answer: Jihadi Witnesses...
https://youtu.be/BSyPgQeGlgU

For those who are wondering about ISIS, here is my take on it and I believe it will stand up to your fact checking.

AN UNNAMED POSTER AT AN UNNAMED FORUM said:

The kind of people attracted to ISIS are addicted to violence against others. They are using the religious fanaticism of Islam for their own sick pleasures.

In "American Sniper" we see a thug known as "The Butcher" put a power drill into a small boy to punish a father who cooperated with America forces. If you are willing to do that to your own people without a conscience then anything goes. When no evil Westerners are about they simply torture their own.

Click to expand...

There are undoubtedly some sickos who simply get off on the opportunity to practice sadism.

But to see ISIS as that and nothing more will leave you ill equipped to resist them successfully.

Islam has suffered for centuries with a trend toward modernization when it was fundamentalism which Mohammed demonstrated was the key to achieving the goal of global conquest.

So, ISIS believers have gone back to basics.

They are doing things old school. As close to the template established by Mohammed as possible. And it is working just as well today as it did when Islam went from 150 followers to killing and conquering every Kafir on the Arabian Peninsula and onwards.

There is a psychological dynamism created through the use of their methods of jihad which brings about GREATER (not fewer) converts and MORE (not less) victories in the field and LESS (not more) opposition from hypocritical Muslims and apostates who deserve death, according to the teachings of the Prophet.

It saves lives.

And remember the Jordanian Pilot Roast?

That video was produced for the greatest theatrical effect on those who are in Jahiliyyah.

Jahiliyyah (Arabic: جاهلية‎ ǧāhiliyyah/jāhilīyah "ignorance") is an Islamic concept of "ignorance of divine guidance" or "the state of ignorance of the guidance from God" or "Days of Ignorance" referring to the barbaric condition in which Arabs found themselves in pre-Islamic Arabia (in the non-Islamic sense), i.e. ...
Jahiliyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JahiliyyahWikipedia

Click to expand...

They see themselves when they know ISIS is coming and they know that ISIS has the ideological upper hand. ISIS is Islamic just as the Prophet was Islamic.

And those who fight for Democracy or side with Kafirs and hypocrites and unbelievers and apostates are loathsome and deserve the most gruesome deaths.

And that is exactly how Mohammed did t!

And because it worked fantastically for Mohammed, he instructed that it should be practiced by all future Muslims and it would work successfully for fthem as well. "Them" being the so called "radical" (as we think of them) Muslim groups and individuals such as ISIS, Al Qaeda and etc..

And that it would work in the days of Mohammed and it would work today and it would work until the end of time.

They have adopted a winning strategy.

And in a way, it is the most merciful strategy.

It fills the non believer's hearts with fear and makes them flee rather than fight. It makes the moderate Muslims suddenly re-devoted to Islam as the Prophet practiced it. And cities and towns in the path of ISIS offer no resistance and instead greet the ISIS fighters as heroes of Islam.

To dismiss ISIS and other fundamentalist Islamic groups as nothing but sadists is a sign that more reading is in order.

Political Islam - Islam's ideology about unbelievers, Kafirs

JFish123 said:

What's worse then Jehovahs Witnesses? Answer: Jihadi Witnesses...
https://youtu.be/BSyPgQeGlgU

Click to expand...

:2rofll:

Apocalypse said:

ISIS specifically yes it is an offshoot of al-Qaeda, but in an alternate universe where Iraq is not invaded nothing ensures Saddam would not at some point have to face Islamic militias such as ISIS, like Assad had to face even though Syria was not invaded. This is the path Islamic societies had taken and would have taken regardless of an invasion to Iraq and Afghanistan as evident in the cases of Syria and Libya.

Click to expand...

Sure, nothing "ensures", but even more importantly, nothing "implies" that he would have....

Visbek said:

A more accurate assessment is: You've set up a double standard, AND you tilt the scales even further by misrepresenting Islam.

You also fail to understand the consequences of your actions, namely that you inadvertently grant the most radical and most extreme Muslims a form of legitimacy and importance that they do not deserve, and that almost all other Muslims don't want them to have. Aside from the fact that you utterly lack the standing to declare that ISIL is the "One True Islam," you are giving ISIL exactly what they want when you do so. Good job. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yeah. Thanks.

I first saw this rationale used in an online debate about ten years ago.

And I bought it.

Now, I see it is nothing more than a theoretical argument. And it may be a cynical ploy designed to keep us from doing what we need to do to protect ourselves from those at war with us because we do not submit to Allah.

As long as gullible Kafirs can be made to suspend our judgement of Muslims as a whole and Islam as a political ideology (Islam the religion really shouldn't be of much concern to non Muslims as it really hasn't much impact on us...only Muslims) we will one day wake up and find that we were very successful in protecting the rights of the few nice Muslims but at the cost of being overrun by the ones who have no such sentiments.

What will we do then?

Look at the sugar and spice Muslims and want them to give us our culture and society and our tranquility and our values and our government back?

It will be too late. And our sweet sugar and spice Muslim friends will be very kind not to laugh in our faces as they think to themselves, "It is not our fault that you were so stupid to let Muslims dupe you. You deserve your plight. Allahu Akbar."

What we need to do is focus on protecting OURSELVES first, and Muslims only after we have assured our own defenses.

Never before in history has one civilization allowed large numbers of those who come from an alien, and immutably hostile situation, to settle deep within that first civilization’s borders. Never before have the members of one civilization failed to investigate, and even willfully refused to investigate, or to listen to those who warn about, the consequences for all non-Muslims of the belief-system of Islam. In history, the phenomenon of the Barbarians at the Gates is hardly new. Those barbarians lay siege; if they win, they enter in triumph. Should they lose, the advanced civilization survives. But never before have the gates been opened, to an entering force that has not even been identified or understood. Never before have the inhabitants of the by-now vulnerable city made efforts not to recognize, or realize, what they have done, and what they have undone. That demographic intrusion shows no signs of diminishing. The systematic building of mosques and madrasas, paid for by Saudi Arabia, everywhere in the Western world, helps to make the conduct of Muslim life easier.

Western populations have been trained to make much of “celebrating diversity” and “promoting difference” and constructing, on a base of militant but unexamined pluralism, an edifice of legal rights and entitlements.

These rights, these entitlements, this militant pluralism are exploited by Muslims who do not believe in pluralism.

Nor do they accept the individual rights of conscience and free speech, the legal equality of men and women, and of religious and racial minorities, recognized, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Their current claim to support pluralism is based on the need to protect, and increase the power of, the Muslim umma, or Community, within the West, until such time as that umma no longer needs to pretend to have any interest in Western pluralism and Western values.

Click to expand...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/01/fitzgerald-islam-for-infidels-part-one

Medusa said:

[/B]
I didnt see anything like that in Koran

Click to expand...

Their Imams are condoning it.

American said:

Their Imams are condoning it.

Click to expand...

I dont trust most imams or priests.they are usually liars.

Tazmanian Devil said:

Yeah. Thanks.

I first saw this rationale used in an online debate about ten years ago.

And I bought it.

Now, I see it is nothing more than a theoretical argument. And it may be a cynical ploy designed to keep us from doing what we need to do to protect ourselves from those at war with us because we do not submit to Allah.

As long as gullible Kafirs can be made to suspend our judgement of Muslims as a whole and Islam as a political ideology (Islam the religion really shouldn't be of much concern to non Muslims as it really hasn't much impact on us...only Muslims) we will one day wake up and find that we were very successful in protecting the rights of the few nice Muslims but at the cost of being overrun by the ones who have no such sentiments.

What will we do then?

Look at the sugar and spice Muslims and want them to give us our culture and society and our tranquility and our values and our government back?

It will be too late. And our sweet sugar and spice Muslim friends will be very kind not to laugh in our faces as they think to themselves, "It is not our fault that you were so stupid to let Muslims dupe you. You deserve your plight. Allahu Akbar."

What we need to do is focus on protecting OURSELVES first, and Muslims only after we have assured our own defenses.


You are being redirected...

Click to expand...

(From your perspective)Is there such a thing as a good Muslim?

Medusa said:

I dont trust most imams or priests.they are usually liars.

Click to expand...

Note to Kafirs: Most Muslim apologists consider it a victory to make Islam seem to be equal to all other religions.

It isn't.

Don't grant them this seemingly inconsequential concession.

Every Religion is Better

Every religion is better than Islam, and so is atheism. Here are three reasons:
1. All religions, except Islam, have the Golden Rule as an ethical cornerstone. Instead Islam has a dualistic ethical code.
2. In Islam, the Sharia demands that all humanity submit to Islamic customs and law.
3. The only religion that can kill apostates is Islam. Leaving Islam is a capital crime under the Sharia.
Some say that all religions are the same. But, from these reasons, we can see that Islam is inferior to all others.

Click to expand...

Every Religion is Better - Political Islam

JANFU said:

(From your perspective)Is there such a thing as a good Muslim?

Click to expand...

There are probably a great many who might be "Good."

But Islam is NOT why they are good.

They are good IN SPITE OF ISLAM.

How can I say that?

Because I know what the Koran, Sira and Hadith say.

And apparently you don't, or you hope we don't.

Tazmanian Devil said:

There are probably a great many who might be "Good."

But Islam is NOT why they are good.

They are good IN SPITE OF ISLAM.

How can I say that?

Because I know what the Koran, Sira and Hadith say.

And apparently you don't, or you hope we don't.

Click to expand...

Now Muslims in NA and the EU, what is your opinion on those.
Many serve their countries, from Police to the Military.
Many have turned on fanatics and turned in terror suspects and had no hesitation in doing that.

JANFU said:

Now Muslims in NA and the EU, what is your opinion on those.
Many serve their countries, from Police to the Military.
Many have turned on fanatics and turned in terror suspects and had no hesitation in doing that.

Click to expand...

Let's turn your question around in a way which will be far more enlightening than finding out what I believe.

What would Mohammed say, think, feel and do about these Muslims?

If you don't already know the answer, here's a source I invite you to try.

Political Islam - Islam's ideology about unbelievers, Kafirs

Some interesting commentaries based on the Trilogy.

When The Jihad Comes, Whose Side Will You Be On?
Oct 19 2013 | by Bill Warner

by Kenneth Roberts, Associate Writer

There’s good reason to ask this question to ‘nice’ Muslims. It invites Muslims to declare their true values and loyalties: “When jihad comes, whose side will you be on?”

Shoppers at Westgate Mall in Nairobi and Christian students in Nigeria have recently been killed because they had the wrong religion. What will our Muslim neighbors do when the jihadists come to our neighborhood schools, churches and shopping centers in Europe and North America? Will Muslims protect non-Muslim neighbors from death or will they side with the jihadists? A shopping mall jihad has already occurred in the U.S., but it was largely ignored.

You mean, it’s already happened in America?

Yes...

Click to expand...

When The Jihad Comes, Whose Side Will You Be On? - Political Islam

Why Aren’t All Muslims Jihadists?
| | |

If Islam is about jihad, why are there so many nice people who are Muslims? Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam Permalink: Why Aren't All Muslims Jihadists? - Political Islam Copyright © 2014 CSPI, LLC, politicalislam.com Use as needed, just give credit and … Read More>>
Muslims Jihadists


He Seemed Like Such a Nice Guy
| | |

The news is filled with comments made by people who knew the Boston Marathon bombers that they were “nice”, regular people. They cannot believe that the Tsarnaev brothers could be violent. This is not the first time we have heard … Read More>>


Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?
| | |

After a murderous jihad at Fort Hood or the Christmas day airplane bombing attempt, did you hear: “Of course, not all Muslims are bad?” That brings up the question of how do you even tell if a Muslim is bad? …



The Most Despised People in the World
| | |

The most persecuted group in the world today is Christians. Christians in Nigeria, Egypt, Syria and other nations are murdered, raped, kidnapped, enslaved and persecuted on a daily basis. The reason for the vast majority of all of this violence …

You searched for nice muslims - Political Islam

Tazmanian Devil said:

Let's turn your question around in a way which will be far more enlightening than finding out what I believe.

What would Mohammed say, think, feel and do about these Muslims?

If you don't already know the answer, here's a source I invite you to try.

Political Islam - Islam's ideology about unbelievers, Kafirs

Some interesting commentaries based on the Trilogy.



When The Jihad Comes, Whose Side Will You Be On? - Political Islam

Click to expand...

You are always turning the questions around.
Constant deflection when asked for your view, not Mohammed's, your view.
But all I get is crap.
The sites you link to are nothing but hate.
How you arrived at a state of mind where you hate 1.3 Billion Muslims is beyond my capabilities to understand.
No I am not simple minded.
I could never understand hate so deeply ingrained.

So the best I can offer on your hate, your hate site links, your opinion is get a life.
Your posts are filled with hate, racism, bigotry and utter idiocy and all has been noted not only by me, but others on the Board.
Though I do wonder if you carry on like this at public functions?



.